Gresham v. State, 20 Ala. App. 187, 101 So. 909; Brown v. State, 79 Ala. 51; Pate v. State, 162 Ala. 32, 50 So. 357; Campbell v. State, 13 Ala. App. 70, 69 So. 322; Williams v. State, 18 Ala. App. 573, 93 So. 284. Specific acts of the deceased are not admissible to show his bad reputation for peace and quite. Lovejoy v. State, 33 Ala. App. 414, 34 So.2d 692; Id., 250 Ala. 409, 34 So.2d 700; Dupree v. State, 33 Ala. 380, 73 Am.Dec. 422; Smith v. State, 197 Ala. 193, 72 So. 316; Montgomery v. State, 17 Ala. App. 469, 86 So. 132; Id., 204 Ala. 389, 85 So. 785. Testimony of a difficulty between deceased and a third person prior to the killing was properly rejected. Carter v. State, 219 Ala. 670, 123 So. 50; Maxwell v. State, 220 Ala. 419, 125 So. 682; Roper v. State, 25 Ala. App. 397, 147 So. 201. A trial court may reject a juror who states that he would not give the death penalty on circumstantial evidence.
Walker v. State, 265 Ala. 233, 90 So.2d 221. The trial judge is privileged to ask a witness questions and generally he does not commit reversible error by doing so. Patrick v. State, 43 Ala. App. 338, 190 So.2d 551; Lovejoy v. State, 33 Ala. App. 414, 34 So.2d 692. PER CURIAM.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Herbert H. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Refusing to permit defense's attorney to state in his opening statement what he expected the evidence to show was not abuse of discretion. Lovejoy v. State, 33 Ala. App. 414, 34 So.2d 692; Holifield v. State, 42 Ala. App. 209, 159 So.2d 65. PRICE, Presiding Judge.
Hines v. State, 260 Ala. 668, 72 So.2d 296; McKee v. State, 253 Ala. 235, 44 So.2d 781; Eubanks v. State, 36 Ala. App. 208, 54 So.2d 82; Jackson v. State, 260 Ala. 641, 71 So.2d 825; Walker v. State, 265 Ala. 233, 90 So.2d 221. The questions asked and remarks made by the trial judge during the examination of witnesses were not improper. Wilcutt v. State, 41 Ala. App. 25, 123 So.2d 193; Id., 271 Ala. 315, 123 So.2d 203; Lovejoy v. State, 33 Ala. App. 414, 34 So.2d 692; Id., 250 Ala. 409, 34 So.2d 700; Brown v. State, 33 Ala. App. 97, 31 So.2d 670; Vaughn v. State, 25 Ala. App. 204, 143 So. 211. While an accused may introduce evidence of a prior difficulty with the deceased, he may not show the details or merits of such difficulty.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Action of the trial judge in asking questions to develop the truth is not objectionable. Brandes v. State, 17 Ala. App. 390, 85 So. 824; Brown v. State, 33 Ala. App. 97, 31 So.2d 670; Id., 249 Ala. 5, 31 So.2d 681; Id., 249 Ala. 412, 31 So.2d 684; Lovejoy v. State, 33 Ala. App. 414, 34 So.2d 692; Id., 250 Ala. 409, 34 So.2d 700. The trial court may admonish counsel to preserve orderly trial of a case. Vaughn v. State, 236 Ala. 442, 183 So. 428; Griffin v. State, 229 Ala. 482, 158 So. 316; Myers v. Guntersville, 21 Ala. App. 559, 110 So. 52; Doss v. State, 224 Ala. 90, 139 So. 290; Watson v. State, 155 Ala. 9, 46 So. 232.
The appellant's remedy was to request a special written instruction. Davis v. State, 246 Ala. 101, 19 So.2d 358; Lovejoy v. State, 33 Ala. App. 414, 34 So.2d 692. Counsel states in brief: "The court erred in limiting the defendant's testimony under plea of insanity as to matters, happenings and conduct up to the date of trial."
The question to State's witness as to how far deceased was from the end of the gun at the time the wound was inflicted was not subject to the objection of defendant. Lovejoy v. State, 33 Ala. App. 414, 34 So.2d 692; Id., 250 Ala. 409, 34 So.2d 700; Clark v. State, 18 Ala. App. 209, 91 So. 328; Mathis v. State, 15 Ala. App. 245, 73 So. 122; Washington v. State, 269 Ala. 146, 112 So.2d 179. Jones Nix, Evergreen, opposed.
Comments or remarks made by the trial judge in the course of the trial were not prejudicial to defendant's rights. Selvage v. State, 29 Ala. App. 371, 196 So. 163; Munson v. State, 250 Ala. 94, 33 So.2d 463; Lovejoy v. State, 33 Ala. App. 414, 34 So.2d 692; Id., 250 Ala. 409, 34 So.2d 700; Roberts v. State, 32 Ala. App. 20, 21 So.2d 289; Id., 246 Ala. 501, 21 So.2d 291. The nature of a wound or injury, its probable cause and effect can be stated by expert medical witnesses, or witnesses shown to be familiar with such questions; such as an undertaker, or others showing competency. Hicks v. State, 247 Ala. 439, 25 So.2d 139; Thomas v. State, 249 Ala. 358, 31 So.2d 71. It is unnecessary to qualify a witness to testify concerning firearms.
LIVINGSTON, Justice. Petition of Ezekiel Lovejoy for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Lovejoy v. State, 34 So.2d 692. Writ denied.
(R. 2576.) “In Lovejoy v. State, 33 Ala.App. 414, 34 So.2d 692 [ (1948) ], it was held that a police officer was qualified to testify concerning entrance and exit wounds.” Page v. State, 41 Ala.App. 153, 157, 130 So.2d 220, 223 (1960).